Get a bug bounty programme

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the reward grid is 'currently in force' and that activity adds 'hall of fame' and 'reward statistics', giving useful context about freshness and additional data. It also advises reading scope/rules first, which is a behavioral guideline beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the activity flag is explained in a compact sentence, and the pointer to terms is a short clause. Every sentence contributes essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary return contents, the activity flag's effect, and the alternative for terms. It could explicitly state that id and slug are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are provided, but the phrase 'by id or slug' implies that. Minor gap, not a significant omission.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that retrieval is 'by id or slug' (the alternative format) and details that activity adds 'hall of fame' and 'reward statistics' beyond the schema's 'public disclosures and reward statistics'. This adds semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one BugSecure programme'), and enumerates the exact content returned (description, rules, in/out-of-scope targets, reward grid). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_program_terms for terms, so an agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear guidance to read scope and rules before testing/reporting, and points to get_program_terms as the specific alternative for terms. However, it does not explicitly mention siblings like get_program_stats or explain when to prefer those over the activity flag, so the when-not guidance is not fully comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.